i think that comment was pretty plain in it's language. what i read was not that he plans to "bankrupt the coal industry" as the headline stated, but was jus saying that you can't claim that you want clean coal or are producing clean coal, and continue to produce your product in the same way without suffering any economic penalty
what the bush administration has done is let coal producers continue to build their plants using the same technology that contributes greatly to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - not as much as oil production, but we're not talking about that right now.
all obama seemed to be saying (to me...of course maybe i'm just a drooling obamaite who thinks he walks on water and can't think for myself) is that his energy plan tries to level the economic playing field in the energy community, where you cannot just consider the waste you produce a cost of doing business that isn't their responsibility. this is the waste that ruins river, lakes, water tables etc. (aka our water supply) and spews into our atmosphere (unless greenhouse gas emissions are really not a cause of global warming...and there's no correlation between air quality and rising asthma rates amoung children)
the point of the quote - as i remember it - was that his plan calls for companies to pay for the cost of the greenhouse gases they waste. (paying for it through tax) this tax can be avoided by retrofitting plants with scrubbers in smokestacks, collectors that trap the gas that can either be reused to generate heat for the plant or trapped to be traded for another use for another company (the same trap and trade systems that allow folks to collect waste oil from restaurants to fuel their cars that run on converted bio-diesel)...however, the biggest loophole of all is that companies can still produce the gases and spew it into our shared atmosphere, but get carbon offest credits by investing small portions of their profits in sustainable energy companies; thereby economically offsetting the physical consequences of their production. (but again, that's another conversation)
the point, from what i read, was that his policy requires that you as a business have to deal with your waste economically (which is not something they currently do) so - unlike under the current administration where you can find a loophole around the EPA - companies will actually be held responsible. those who are capable of running a profitable coal plant under the rules will profit, and those who cannot will lose money. stubborn businesses who cannot or will not financially account for the waste they create will be penalized financially. that's it.
where in the statement is the quote "I will bankrupt coal companies" not one place.
so when this news buster blog irresponsibly used a headline like "obama wants to bankrupt coal companies" were they or were they not engaging in the same sort of misinformation/spin that nbc/fox/cnn perform for their ad buys and rating #s.
kneejerk reactions in the opposite direction of unfairness does not make one's reaction fair. careful analysis and reaction makes one fair. msnbc, nbc, fox, cnn, cnbc fox business, sometimes even pbs, aren't fair because it's not smart business for media outlets to be fair. advertisers pay for ratings increases, not fairness. unfortunately, we live in a world where a media outlet that actually worried about fairness more than ad dollars would go bankrupt or have to depend of govt dollars (which over the past 8 years they'd have no chance of getting)
however, just railing on the media's slurping up obama (which they are) and then putting out articles with the opposite slant doens't make it balanced.
1 comment:
i think that comment was pretty plain in it's language. what i read was not that he plans to "bankrupt the coal industry" as the headline stated, but was jus saying that you can't claim that you want clean coal or are producing clean coal, and continue to produce your product in the same way without suffering any economic penalty
what the bush administration has done is let coal producers continue to build their plants using the same technology that contributes greatly to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - not as much as oil production, but we're not talking about that right now.
all obama seemed to be saying (to me...of course maybe i'm just a drooling obamaite who thinks he walks on water and can't think for myself) is that his energy plan tries to level the economic playing field in the energy community, where you cannot just consider the waste you produce a cost of doing business that isn't their responsibility. this is the waste that ruins river, lakes, water tables etc. (aka our water supply) and spews into our atmosphere (unless greenhouse gas emissions are really not a cause of global warming...and there's no correlation between air quality and rising asthma rates amoung children)
the point of the quote - as i remember it - was that his plan calls for companies to pay for the cost of the greenhouse gases they waste. (paying for it through tax) this tax can be avoided by retrofitting plants with scrubbers in smokestacks, collectors that trap the gas that can either be reused to generate heat for the plant or trapped to be traded for another use for another company (the same trap and trade systems that allow folks to collect waste oil from restaurants to fuel their cars that run on converted bio-diesel)...however, the biggest loophole of all is that companies can still produce the gases and spew it into our shared atmosphere, but get carbon offest credits by investing small portions of their profits in sustainable energy companies; thereby economically offsetting the physical consequences of their production. (but again, that's another conversation)
the point, from what i read, was that his policy requires that you as a business have to deal with your waste economically (which is not something they currently do)
so - unlike under the current administration where you can find a loophole around the EPA - companies will actually be held responsible. those who are capable of running a profitable coal plant under the rules will profit, and those who cannot will lose money. stubborn businesses who cannot or will not financially account for the waste they create will be penalized financially. that's it.
where in the statement is the quote "I will bankrupt coal companies" not one place.
so when this news buster blog irresponsibly used a headline like "obama wants to bankrupt coal companies" were they or were they not engaging in the same sort of misinformation/spin that nbc/fox/cnn perform for their ad buys and rating #s.
kneejerk reactions in the opposite direction of unfairness does not make one's reaction fair. careful analysis and reaction makes one fair. msnbc, nbc, fox, cnn, cnbc fox business, sometimes even pbs, aren't fair because it's not smart business for media outlets to be fair. advertisers pay for ratings increases, not fairness. unfortunately, we live in a world where a media outlet that actually worried about fairness more than ad dollars would go bankrupt or have to depend of govt dollars (which over the past 8 years they'd have no chance of getting)
however, just railing on the media's slurping up obama (which they are) and then putting out articles with the opposite slant doens't make it balanced.
Post a Comment